Bill O’Reilly is on FOX arguing that the “white establishment” would’ve “roundly defeated Obama” and elected Romney 20 years ago, but that’s because back then we lived in a “traditional America.” He’s also arguing that women, blacks and Hispanics “want stuff, they want stuff, and who’s going to give them stuff? Not a traditional American.”

This has all the makings of a top-notch meltdown. Not to be missed. Two thumbs WAY up! You won’t find a finer racist rant this holiday season. It’s sexism for the whole family!

MCMANUS: Proportionately, black birth rate and increases in their population will level out and be less significant in growth in that time period. I think Bill will be able to address the numbers better than I can, but…

O’REILLY: OK. And how about Asian? What’s the situation with that?

MCMANUS: Asian — we’re going to see a 213 percent increase, according to the Census Bureau projection, and so that will be a very rapid increase of the percentage of their population in the U.S. as well.

O’REILLY: All right. Now, Doctor, the Census Bureau really doesn’t tell us how this is going to affect the country. Do you have any theories on it?

WILLIAM FREY, PH.D., BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Well, I really think what’s happening is going to be this phasing out or fading out of the white baby boom population. It is a 50-year time period we’re talking about…

O’REILLY: Yes. We’ll all be dead. Thank God, right?

[SEK again] I generally distrust my transcription skills, being deaf and all, but Other Scott’s link indicates that not only did I basically get it right, but it’s actually worse than I made it out to be. And I was trying to hand him some rope to hang himself with.

[And again] Sarah Palin’s trying valiantly to hold back her tears. I’m not saying that means anything, I’m just saying I enjoy watching her try not to weep: “But four more years, of him doing this to our Constitution, this socialism, to what our Founders with their smarts made, it’s just, just, all this socialism …”

In fact, the phenomenon you see above is not necessarily racism. It is ethnic self-identification. The guys here are trying to come to grips with the fact that “being American” no longer means “being white”.

As such, the concern for the fate of one’s ethnic group is legitimate. For example, if a Jew makes a question: “Will widespread marriages with Gentiles destroy the American Jewry?” that is not racist.

However, such concern for the fate of one’s ethnic group also means that you must give up the claim that your group represents the entire nation.

Democracy Now has on a panel with Hedges (love the guy but he makes Debbie Downer look upbeat), Scahill, and St. Ralph to pick through the “ruins” of this evening. Charlie Pierce was on the phone to discuss Warren’s victory (hopefully not an early misread) but he got pre-empted by Bernie Sanders before he could fully run Mr. Playgirl through the woodchipper.

I suppose there’s some pleasure to be found in watching Fox tonight, though I prefer such poison filtered through Stewart.

leigh says November 6, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Good. That’s what I’d do. Rent out your house or put it on a contract with a buyer if you don’t get a buyer right away and get out of dodge.
You can barter for the goats or for a hired man until you get the kids trained to care for them. Same with chickens.

I find it funny that SEK and all the other academics on this blog are part of a White establishment that is among the most exclusionary set of institutions in the world. I have concluded that the Black Power advocates were right in the early 1970s when they noted that it was White left-liberal academics that did the most to promote institutional racism. See for instance _The Death of White Sociology_ (1973).

Right, because African Americans are now fully and equally represented in all University faculties and administrations in the US. Do you really believe that nonsense? The basic premise that racial inequality continues to exist in the US and that academic institutions are a core part of that inequality have not fundamentally changed since 1973. I noticed that Bonilla-Silva makes a similar argument in his Racism without Racists when he notes that liberals love to blame racism on poor whites (red necks), but they are not the real cause of racial inequality in the US. They have far less power than White liberal academics who do continue to perpetrate racial inequality in institutions of higher education.

The Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 0f the past 6 presidential elections. Their only hope is to become overtly a white person’s party. Get rid of this Ayn Rand gibberish and instead do nothing but whine about affirmative action. Now they seem to have the worst of both worlds, in that they are alienating people who are not white with their barely concealed racial paranoia and also alienating large numbers of white people(especially low-income white people), who are not entirely down with the cult of diversity but who think government exists to promote the welfare of all people instead of to enforce a hierarchy.